ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022
Digitizing the Informed Consent Process: A Review of the Regulatory Landscape in the European Union.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recruiting and Consenting Decentralized Clinical Trial Participants-Learnings from the Trials@Home RADIAL Proof-of-Concept Trial.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Ethical oversight of AI-driven paediatric trials: a proactive, risk-sensitive interim review model.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Prohibiting Babel-A call for professional remote interpreting services in pre-operation anaesthesia information.PloS one · 2025Article
- Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024Review
- Genetic tests as the strongest motivator of cooperation between participants and biobanks-Findings from cross-sectional study.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Do biobanks need pharmacists? Support of pharmacy students to biobanking of human biological material for pharmaceutical research and development.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Informing a European guidance framework on electronic informed consent in clinical research: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Informed Consent: Legal Obligation or Cornerstone of the Care Relationship?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Personalized and longitudinal electronic informed consent in clinical trials: How to move the needle?Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid technological advancements are reshaping the conduct of clinical research. Electronic informed consent (eIC) is one of these novel advancements, allowing to interactively convey research-related information to participants and obtain their consent. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of establishing a digital, long-distance relationship between research participants and researchers. However, the regulatory landscape in the European Union (EU) is diverse, posing a legal challenge to implement eIC in clinical research. Therefore, this study takes the necessary steps forward by providing an overview of the current regulatory framework in the EU, relevant to eIC. Methods: We reviewed and analyzed the key EU regulations, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). We investigated the legality of eIC in several EU Member States, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. To this end, we contacted the medicines agencies of various countries to clarify the national requirements related to the implementation and use of eIC in clinical research. Our research was complemented by comparing the legal acceptance of eIC between the EU and the United States. Results: In the EU, a distinction must be made between eIC for participation in clinical research and eIC for processing the participants' personal data, complying respectively with requirements laid down by the CTR and the GDPR. On a national level, countries were classified into three groups: (1) countries accepting and regulating the use of eIC, (2) countries accepting the use of eIC without explicitly regulating it, and (3) countries not accepting the use of eIC. As a result, the regulation of eIC through laws and guidelines shows a large variety among EU Member States, while in the United States, it is harmonized through the Code of Federal Regulations. Conclusion: Various requirements must be considered when implementing eIC in clinical research. Nevertheless, requirements across the EU Member States may differ significantly, whereas, in the United States, efforts have already been made to achieve a harmonized approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.